Now we are a bit further on with things we don't think there is a problem with adding this additional information and making it optional.

We are concerned that there may need to be wider consultation on what exactly is required, so would welcome some more concrete proposals. It may be that this should be tried as an additional namespace, but if we can get it right quickly it could be part of the 1.03 release.

This should be considered along with first item about more granularity for contact details. I am concerned at the maintenance aspects of names and titles as staff change jobs quite often. So indeed a web address for contact about an activity - where it exists - has merit as being less dependent on inidividual names.

I think web-address and contact-info have slightly different use cases.

However, both are particularly valuable for data being published by smaller organisations.

Whilst it might be appropriate for a large donor to provide a contact point address or a generic link back to their project pages about an activity, when we get more granular data direct from implementing partners, then offering the option of staff names and contact details being provided would be incredibly valuable.

All of the contact granularity proposals are intended as options to allow people to express more details through the standard if they want to - rather than being required for those institutions who do not hold such data, or where it would not be appropriate for it to be included.

Thanks Tim - I agree it is all optional and will depend on agency practice. We should keep acitivy web address as a separate field, but if we also think that the web address might serve as a contact point (or there is a separate contact web address), then it should be included with the contact granularity proposals.